Authenticity of the Qur'an

[جوري]

Here is the link and the document in question is about 4,500 words long and that is too big for convenience in a posting. In any case my tendency is to point to the source directly so there is no ambiguity and no chance that anything is missed.

You've read all 4500 words of each and concluded that Al-Azami plagiarized word for word? You've given me one link and there is no Dr. Al'Azami script for me to compare, I'd like for you to not only act on my previous request in a stepwise fashion, up to and including contact with the authors, nonetheless, a simple step you can do, is look at the dates. Dr. Al-Azami's book was published in 2003, this article is written 2005. So you do the math!
Further, the material in there is common knowledge, anyone into comparative study would reach the same conclusion, using the same passages!

I have stated my view that Dr Azami is a careless scholar and I have identified a serious difficulty and given you the page numbers in his book and the web source. Rationally, you should be concerned because it calls into question the credibility of the whole book because someone is being plagiarised.

See above comments about dates, and I have addressed all your concerns in a step wise very concise fashion in the previous pages. Allow me to say. You couldn't tell the difference between a squash and a cucumber if you were married to them, thus I don't know how I can possibly take anything you write seriously!

You are the one with a high opinion of the book but if you want to ignore this and not check the link then that is matter for you. If you can exonerate him that will be excellent and a good result but if you cannot then this book will draw down ridicule for Islamic scholarship.

http://www.islam-is-the-only-solution.com/Jesus-Jihad-and-Jizyah.htm

The mere date discrepancy which you were remiss at best in mentioning should be enough of a testimony. I don't need to exonerate him I think his work stands on its merits, as with each post you write, I realize that I am dealing with an amateur and I feel rather contrite having wasted my time on such a dynamo of a hyperbole!


all the best

 

[Uthman]

Please stick to discussing the authenticity of the Qur'an. Members are advised not to spend a long time preparing off-topic posts, since they will be deleted.

I would also like to reiterate my reminder in this post.

 

[Proud of Islam]

Salaam..

4. Is your view that the Qu'ran now in your possession that it has no faults whatever: grammar is perfect, poetry is perfect, rhythm is perfect etc. A plain yes or no will do.

5. Let us supposed that I or anyone can show that it is not perfect in any of these respects - what will you do, will your faith be in tatters?

I bet and challenge if anyone can show in the holy Quran a SINGLE mistake or weakness in any of these respects!
We are Arabs, and we are amazed by the perfection of the Holy Quran.. Long books were written to discuss ((some)) of the perfect language in the Holy Quran..

Allah swt has challenged people who disbelieved the prophet (pbuh) in a sequence of requests where the next requests were easier than the previous, but each time, they failed..


[52:34] Then let them bring an announcement like it if they are truthful.

[11:13] Or, do they say: He has forged it. Say: Then bring ten forged chapters like it and call upon whom you can besides Allah, if you are truthful!

[2:23] And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

[17:88] Say: If men and jinn should combine together to bring the like of this Quran, they could not bring the like of it, though some of them were aiders of others.

By the way, even Arabic non-Muslims know this fact!

I assume you mean here that 'at the time' was 1,400 years ago they (who exactly are "they") could not do it then so no its not strange at all but it is not true now is it?

It IS even nowadays, no one can write anything like the Quran.. You might not be able to understand this since you might not know Arabic.. The language of the Holy Quran is GREAT!
Let me ask a question, there are some Arabs who are not Muslims; they believe in other religions & some of them are even atheist, why they haven't tried to challenge Muslims and write like the Quranic verses? Because as Arabs, it's obvious that they cannot at all, and they know that it wouldn't be a proper situation because even an Arabic child can distinguish between the great Quran verses and the other contexts..

Alwaleed ben AlMugeera was not believer; however, he got amazed by the language of the holy Quran and he said a sentence that I might not be able to translate accurately, so I wish someone else will translate it; I apologise but my English is not that good:

أخرج الحاكم وصححه والبيهقي في الدلائل من طريق عكرمة عن ابن عباس أن الوليد بن المغيرة جاء إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقرأ عليه القرآن فكأنه رق له فبلغ ذلك أبا جهل فأتاه فقال : يا عم إن قومك يريدون أن يجمعوا لك مالا ليعطوه لك فإنك أتيت محمدا لتعرض لما قبله
قال : قد علمت قريش أني من أكثر مالا
قال : فقل فيه قولا يبلغ قومك أنك منكر أو أنك كاره له
قال : وماذا أقول ؟ فوالله ما فيكم رجل أعلم بالشعر مني ولا برجزه ولا بقصيده مني ولا بشاعر الجن والله ما يشبه الذي يقول شيئا من هذا ووالله إن لقوله الذي يقول لحلاوة وإن عليه لطلاوة وإنه لمثمر أعلاه مغدق أسفله وإنه ليعلوا وما يعلى وإنه ليحطم ما تحته قال : لا يرضى عنك قومك حتى تقول فيه
قال : فدعني حتى أفكر
ففكر
فلما فكر قال : هذا سحر يؤثر يأثره عن غيره فنزلت آيات تتحدث عن قوله وعن عقابه..​

So, they were disbelievers but without claiming to make proven facts as faults!


----------------------------------------------------------------

Longing for the Paradise (Al-Jannah) where the endless happiness…

 

[Hugo]

Re: A Summary

Originally Posted by Hugo -1. Page xvi and xvii Azami) writes: “.. the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospels were written c. the 10th century...”. citing as a source Bruce Metzger who wrote “This is one of the earliest dated Greek manuscripts of the Gospel... “.

Why does Azami leave out the word "one" which in this context is critical to understanding, frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later.

Gossamer Skye Not a single book from the NT has survived in the original author's handwriting, the closest thing being a fragment dated c. 100-115 and containing six verses of John 18 (footnote) Here I must interject that this date is pure guesswork, a subjective enterprise that can occasionally run with...

Hugo - I asked why did Azami leave out the important word "one" and I see no answer to that.

Original Posted by Hugo - 2. Bottom of Page xvii Dr Azami says "The only known facts are that the OT books appeared on the scene only to disappear promptly for a few hundred years, before abruptly resurfacing. Again they disappeared without trace for many centuries, and were once again suddenly recovered." Ignoring the impossibility of these being the 'only' known facts, Dr Azami at this point gives a ref to 2 Kings 14-16 (meaning chapters 14 to 16?). One supposes that these chapters would confirm his 'known facts' but the chapters list the names together with tiny biographies of Kings for the two Jewish kingdoms: Israel and Judah spanning about 200 years. In this list of kings There is one ref to the Torah in 2 Kings 14:6 and a very oblique one in verse 14 to the temple being robbed (where a copy was kept) and several refs to the Book of The Chronicles of the Kings. Hardly conclusive is it?

Gossamer Skye : I am at a loss at to why this is a difficult point -- you may actually use google the search feature and you'll get youtube vids by Jews speaking of the law of Moses being lost-- is it a matter of reference of vexation of bringing such a known point to the light?

Hugo - this is irrelevant as I am asking WHY did Dr Azami give a reference that has no content relative to his claims. This is not about whether its true or not its about whether Azami is showing his quality as a scholar.

Missing books of the OT:
1. The Book of the Wars of the Lord(Sepher Milkhamot Adonai)
“Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, “Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,” (Numbers 21:14) etc

Hugo - so when Dr Azami speaks of OT books he includes everything so 39 plus I don't know how many you listed and all these books were lost and found TWICE. Not credible is it and as my original point the ref he gives hardly covers all this.

Original Posted by Hugo - 3. On page xx he says “.. non Muslim sources however, some of whom feel no hesitation in referring to their own Lord Jesus Christ as an adulterer or a homosexual, to David as an adulterous schemer, or to Solomon as an idolater”.

This is a misleading idea because nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus was an adulterer or homosexual but it does say the other two things. So here he is either muddled or ignorant of simple facts and sources. Muslims might believe in the purity of the prophets but the Bible records Noah as getting drunk, Lot as sleeping with his daughters, Joseph as being drunk with his brothers, Abraham as a liar, Sarah as a spiteful vindictive women, Moses as trying to take the place of God and so on. Why does it do this is if it’s not true, what crazy redactor would leave all that in so here we have deliberate confusion over ‘non-Muslim sources' and a denial of what must be the truth.
covered by me here also by me from a different thread:

Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died. (D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 - May 1, 1532, p. 33)

Hugo - this may be what someone wrote but it is NOT a biblical source is it and that is my point. I can find a site that says that prophet Mohammed was all sorts of nasty things, would you accept it just because someone said it?

Originally Posted by Hugo - 4. On page xxi he speaks of a ‘most accurate Qu’ran in the world’ so there must be inaccurate ones and hence inaccurate manuscript and never quite explains how he knows it is the most accurate.

No, Only you are supposing that the others are false because oh it would be so delightful, the Medinah Mus'haf if you have bothered with a two second research you'd have come up with:

Hugo - I said nothing about it being false I just asked in essence what did he mean and how doe he know its the most accurate. You seem to confirm it below and Dr Azami later inn the book talks of 'errors'

''However, authors and publishers have not been able to include the Qur'anic verses in documents and personal writings, except in normal fonts, which lack many of the aesthetic aspects that the Uthmanic calligraphy has. This has resulted in some instances of text distortions, confusion of reading or drops of certain items.''

Now you tell me honesty If there were such a thing as an 'original bible' from the mouth of Jesus in such ancient text, or different shattered handwriting, would you be able to read it as I have just done with this level of confidence and fluidity?

no to your last question but obviously the complete Bible did not exists did it, there was NO NT at that time, how come you did not know such bas simple fact? But this is irrelevant to what we are discussing and that is Dr Azami as a Scholar. Later we can discuss what his book says on Biblical issues

 

[جوري]

Hugo Why does Azami leave out the word "one" which in this context is critical to understanding, frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later.

It is irrelevant, unless you'd like to clarify for us, how it would make a difference? The dots used in quotations denotes emphasis on the important factors. It is a preface, there is no point to heroic measures, and is it so happens he in fact later expounded on said point as is evident in my quote from his book.

Hugo - this is irrelevant as I am asking WHY did Dr Azami give a reference that has no content relative to his claims. This is not about whether its true or not its about whether Azami is showing his quality as a scholar.

another non-point, the claim isn't only true, it is corroborated.. it is pointless to fill a book with otiose lines that can be sustained by a quick reference. Which in fact what I have done using different scholars, fixating on ancillary topics simply to appease one person, I suspect isn't enough of an impetus for scholars to change direction and concede to circumstantially especially if it has no relevance to the matter at hand. Do you understand the difference between circumstantially/ tangentially and being a master of apposite and appropriate writing and/or speech?

If not google it, because it is something that I rather think is very important for you personally to employ. We are on page 14 and you have this habit of being repetitious, worst yet, you are either uninterested or simply don't bother reading or addressing the replies given you. as you reiterate them on every post (it is getting tedious). I admit that this will make you successful in two ways.
1- you'll tire everyone out and if that is your claim to success, then allow me to say, it is rather contemptible!
2- if you are only interested in your point of view, then there is a section on this forum dedicated to free writing (where you can win prizes for your soliloquies, and in such a case, I suggest you write a long drawn out grievance in the form of a story or pros and see who awards you for it.

Hugo - this may be what someone wrote but it is NOT a biblical source is it and that is my point. I can find a site that says that prophet Mohammed was all sorts of nasty things, would you accept it just because someone said it?

This isn't just anyone This is the view of the Protestant Church adhering to the views of Martin Luther. It isn't mere islamophobes writing rhetoric that has no basis in the Quran or Sunna. It is a scholar of Christianity's views based on the bible. And in fact so tells us Dr. Al-Azami, and please allow me to quote to prove to the members who haven't read the book, simply how deviant you are in distorting the image of this author. '' Martin Luther negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther's table talk'' pp 269. which is in fact what I had excerpted earlier, as you can see, I didn't sponge it from an anti-christian website, and that such a view went unchallenged by christians. Frankly if you have a problem with it, you should address amongst Christians not amongst Muslims-- Given its roots and the rather large denomination that isn't deemed heretical but accepted as a major school of thought!

Hugo - I said nothing about it being false I just asked in essence what did he mean and how doe he know its the most accurate. You seem to confirm it below and Dr Azami later inn the book talks of 'errors'

And I have explained sufficiently, how using the Uthamnic text would circumvent incorrect readings by amateurs and the those inexperienced in Arabic grammar. Gave quite a few examples:
for instance ادغام elision or اظهار proclamation and others with their numerous subcategories can be lost to someone who isn't familiar with Arabic grammar if the تشكيل figuration, isn't pre configured in advance. It has nothing whatsoever to do with 'errors' as you conceive them to be. Again, this is an example on how you hammer in a point to death, though it is very clearly and concisely explained with examples given previously!

no to your last question but obviously the complete Bible did not exists did it, there was NO NT at that time, how come you did not know such bas simple fact? But this is irrelevant to what we are discussing and that is Dr Azami as a Scholar. Later we can discuss what his book says on Biblical issues

that is just your inner child speaking, I imagine. You have Aramaic and Hebrew, and Greek bibles in existence regardless of how far after christ they were concocted can you read and understand those and defend them or just like to demand that of others and not expect it of yourself?

All the best as always

 

[Hugo]

You've read all 4500 words of each and concluded that Al-Azami plagiarized word for word? You've given me one link and there is no Dr. Al'Azami script for me to compare, I'd like for you to not only act on my previous request in a stepwise fashion, up to and including contact with the authors, nonetheless, a simple step you can do, is look at the dates. Dr. Al-Azami's book was published in 2003, this article is written 2005. So you do the math!
Further, the material in there is common knowledge, anyone into comparative study would reach the same conclusion, using the same passages!


See above comments about dates, and I have addressed all your concerns in a step wise very concise fashion in the previous pages. Allow me to say. You couldn't tell the difference between a squash and a cucumber if you were married to them, thus I don't know how I can possibly take anything you write seriously!



The mere date discrepancy which you were remiss at best in mentioning should be enough of a testimony. I don't need to exonerate him I think his work stands on its merits, as with each post you write, I realize that I am dealing with an amateur and I feel rather contrite having wasted my time on such a dynamo of a hyperbole! all the best

I am well aware of the date of the web posting but someone is copying here and I cannot tell for sure whom it is. The date might be important but its not conclusive and given that the web site is well referenced it would seem a bit odd that he would leave out such an important and well know author such as Azami.

I am not in the habit of posting huge chunks of text or references to multiple websites which in practice no one reads. I have given clear references to the questionable material and that is the proper scholarly way to deal with it, point to the primary sources. If people don't have Azami's book then they cannot with any kind of authority join the discussion. If you or anyone wants to follow it up then do so.

If you want to post sections of Azami's book then I will run them through the software I have access to and see what it throws up.

 

[Ramadhan]

I would like to see just once Hugo addresses Skye's highly detailed postings in their entirety.

 

[Hugo]

Hugo Why does Azami leave out the word "one" which in this context is critical to understanding, frankly it looks like he is misleading deliberately or unintentionally the reader into thinking that all NT text are 10th century or later.

It is irrelevant, unless you'd like to clarify for us, how it would make a difference? The dots used in quotations denotes emphasis on the important factors. It is a preface, there is no point to heroic measures, and is it so happens he in fact later expounded on said point as is evident in my quote from his book.

This is my last post on this issue as I would like to move on. On page xxvi at the top of the page he clearly want to convey the impression that the earliest dated manuscripts and by implication all manuscript are 10th century. To support this view he has to appeal to a Biblical NT scholar of note. He choose Bruse Metzger but Metzger said "one of .." meaning there are many early dated manuscripts. In Metzger's book we find very long lists of manuscripts; so why select just this one: why not add say a ref to codex Vaticanus which is a 4th century manuscript in short he paints a distorted picture and one has to ask why does he do that if he is an unbiased observer?

 

[Hugo]

This isn't just anyone This is the view of the Protestant Church adhering to the views of Martin Luther. It isn't mere islamophobes writing rhetoric that has no basis in the Quran or Sunna. It is a scholar of Christianity's views based on the bible. And in fact so tells us Dr. Al-Azami, and please allow me to quote to prove to the members who haven't read the book, simply how deviant you are in distorting the image of this author. '' Martin Luther negates the image of a sinless Jesus. This is to be found in Luther's table talk'' pp 269. which is in fact what I had excerpted earlier, as you can see, I didn't sponge it from an anti-christian website, and that such a view went unchallenged by christians. Frankly if you have a problem with it, you should address amongst Christians not amongst Muslims-- Given its roots and the rather large denomination that isn't deemed heretical but accepted as a major school of thought!

One can find this story anywhere on the web and almost always they are Islamic sites. When you read them you love them because it tells you what you want to hear and I know all you have done is copy from one or more of those sites as if that is a suitable primary source. Why is it that you never look for another interpretation of Luther's supposed words? Not to do so is dishonest. If you were an honest seeker you would have looked for alternative sites which gave a different view.

I have no access to the works in question but I did look for an alternative view on the web and used http://aardvarkalley.blogspot.com/2006/05/luther-jesus-and-mary-magdalene_19.html Almost all websites have limitation as one cannot usually do the scholarly checks one would want to to check the authors etc. But in summary:

Luther is not the leader of the protestant church, there is no such leader. I might as well argue that Ayatollah, Khomeini was the leader of the Muslim world an important Sufi cleric speaks for all sunni Muslims.

My understanding is that it was John Schlaginhaufen who recorded these quotes back in the spring of 1532 but did not always explain the context in which the sayings were made.

So we have to ask what was Luther talking about back in 1532? He may have been examining Jesus from the perspective of people at the time of Jesus who were shocked that He ate and drank with "sinners" and that He'd sit and talk one-on-one and in public with a woman. He may have been speaking theologically about these woman being granted forgiveness; Jesus was no passive bystander, He lived among us. While sinless, He took our sins upon Himself that He might fully forgive us.

Luther was a man who taught faith in Jesus and one simply cannot imagine he would put such faith in someone who he thought to be an adulterer.

If you wish to always accept what you read preferring to pounce on slander rather that use your reason or even accept that there might be a perfectly rational way of explaining these remarks. No, that might be asking too much, you want to believe this is the Christian church slandering its founder so you do. Fine, but I advise you not to rely on websites and the likes of Dan Brown as authority on scriptures or the history of the church

 

[Hugo]

Hugo - I said nothing about it being false I just asked in essence what did he mean and how doe he know its the most accurate. You seem to confirm it below and Dr Azami later in the book talks of 'errors'

And I have explained sufficiently, how using the Uthamnic text would circumvent incorrect readings by amateurs and the those inexperienced in Arabic grammar.

Hugo - I refer you to to Azami page 151 where he speak of errors and scribal blunders. I will come back to this page later. I also have referred you to Professor Easak's (a Muslim scholar) work (ISBN 978-1-85168-624-7) page 111 where he says "Uthman's project to compile the Qu'ran was clearly in response to a proliferation of 'unauthorised copies' during his time - partly as the result of the Arabic script of the time"

and

"Early Qu'ranic Arabic lacks precision because distingusingt between consonant was impossible given the absence of diacritical marks... All of this leads to endless possibilities in meaning and error in transcription..."

no to your last question but obviously the complete Bible did not exists did it, there was NO NT at that time, how come you did not know such bas simple fact? But this is irrelevant to what we are discussing and that is Dr Azami as a Scholar. Later we can discuss what his book says on Biblical issues
that is just your inner child speaking, I imagine. You have Aramaic and Hebrew, and Greek bibles in existence regardless of how far after christ they were concocted can you read and understand those and defend them or just like to demand that of others and not expect it of yourself?

Here you simply repeat the common Islamic view that the Bible was 'concocted' so you dismiss many 1000's of manuscripts, 100s of years of painstaking scholarship and research so ignore therefore any evidence because it does not fit in with you world-view. For you it has no value, even the greatest passages and books - why do that, even if it were not a religious book, what rational person would disregard what is plainly good?

You say you believe in a Bible, an uncorrupted one that no one now can see and where is there any rationality in that?

 

[Zafran]

Here you simply repeat the common Islamic view that the Bible was 'concocted' so you dismiss many 1000's of manuscripts, 100s of years of painstaking scholarship and research so ignore therefore any evidence because it does not fit in with you world-view. For you it has no value, even the greatest passages and books - why do that, even if it were not a religious book, what rational person would disregard what is plainly good?

You say you believe in a Bible, an uncorrupted one that no one now can see and where is there any rationality in that?

No no no Its well known that manuscripts dont match anyway - you can have a million manuscripts - it means zero if they cannot be matched togather - you have 100s of years of scholarship but you also have scholars saying the opposite - Do you ignore them too for your worldview? - pure hypocricy here.

we dont beleive in a Bible - we believe in a gospel given to christ and Torah given to Moses pbuh - what you have today is clearly not that - thats enough for us - this can easily be estabilshed too.

With a thread going up to 14 pages and still you have zero clue of what muslims believe in. Does it go in one ear and go out of the other.

 

[Zafran]

why not add say a ref to codex Vaticanus which is a 4th century manuscript in short he paints a distorted picture and one has to ask why does he do that if he is an unbiased observer?

Yes vaticanus is a 4th century manuscript - did you know it has verses actually ommited out of it - eg - mark 16:9-20.

 

[Hugo]

No no no Its well known that manuscripts dont match anyway - you can have a million manuscripts - it means zero if they cannot be matched togather - you have 100s of years of scholarship but you also have scholars saying the opposite - Do you ignore them too for your worldview? - pure hypocricy here.

we dont beleive in a Bible - we believe in a gospel given to christ and Torah given to Moses pbuh - what you have today is clearly not that - thats enough for us - this can easily be estabilshed too.

With a thread going up to 14 pages and still you have zero clue of what muslims believe in. Does it go in one ear and go out of the other.

1. This is simply illogical nonsense - I can have dozens of books on say business studies or history all covering the same thing they don't match either so according to you all those books are worthless. Look at Azami's book and he says that for Qu'ranic text there were what he called scribal blunders so they don' t match either. In a court of law one has witnesses and and if everyone said exactly the same thing you would suspect its a fix up. The fact of many 1,000s of manuscripts exist is that is possible to reconstruct the original. If you cannot accept that as a possibility then your mind is closed.

What is wrong with scholars disagreeing and taking even opposite views, that is how one learns. Would you accept without question everything you are told? Does it never happen in Islam?

2. You say you believe in the Torah (5 books) and Gospels (4 Books) but seem to have forgotten the Psalms (150 of them). So where is there any logic or even common sense in believing in the contents of books which you have never seen?

 

[Zafran]

1. This is simply illogical nonsense - I can have dozens of books on say business studies or history all covering the same thing they don't match either so according to you all those books are worthless. Look at Azami's book and he says that for Qu'ranic text there were what he called scribal blunders so they don' t match either. In a court of law one has witnesses and and if everyone said exactly the same thing you would suspect its a fix up. The fact of many 1,000s of manuscripts exist is that is possible to reconstruct the original. If you cannot accept that as a possibility then your mind is closed.

What is wrong with scholars disagreeing and taking even opposite views, that is how one learns. Would you accept without question everything you are told? Does it never happen in Islam?

2. You say you believe in the Torah (5 books) and Gospels (4 Books) but seem to have forgotten the Psalms (150 of them). So where is there any logic or even common sense in believing in the contents of books which you have never seen?

1 - utter nonsense You still havent talked about the corruption eg mark 19 - the ommited verses - Millions of manuscripts OK - they corrupted I gave you an example how do you fill mark 16-9-20?? - thats preety much ended the talk there - I never said anything about Azami - where did I say anything about Azami???

we are also talking about revelation and not some man made business studies book - unless you believe that the Bible is man made? Then we agree. Not having mark 16-9-20 and having mark 16-9-20 - big differneces - they DONT consist of the same things.

2 - Nonsense again I say we believe in the Gospel of Jesus Not the books of mark and matthew etc and the Torah of Moses - not the one where he is being buried!!!!!

Its preety logical

Its a bit like I believe in my Great, great,great,great,great,great grandma existed even though I have never seen her - I dont even know who she was But Still believe she existed - so is that nonsense???

Nothing wrong with scholars having differences - But when they show serious flaws they have to be dealt with it intellectually.

 

[Hugo]

Yes vaticanus is a 4th century manuscript - did you know it has verses actually ommited out of it - eg - mark 16:9-20.

Why not try to answer the question I set on Dr Azami's book not avoid it like this. If you read Dr Azami's book you would have known there are fragmentary Qu'rans - bits missing, does that ipso facto mean the Qu'ran now cannot be trusted?.

 

[Zafran]

Why not try to answer the question I set on Dr Azami's book not avoid it like this. If you read Dr Azami's book you would have known there are fragmentary Qu'rans - bits missing, does that ipso facto mean the Qu'ran now cannot be trusted?.

eg?

You made assertion about Vaticanus and I have shown where it is corrupted unless you can show me where it is not - mark 16 - 9- 20 is missing - how will you create that and where was it first found?

 

[Hugo]

1 - utter nonsense You still havent talked about the corruption eg mark 19 - the ommited verses - Millions of manuscripts OK - they corrupted I gave you an example how do you fill mark 16-9-20?? - thats preety much ended the talk there - I never said anything about Azami - where did I say anything about Azami???

Hugo - one fills in the verses from other manuscript witnesses because we have a large collection of them. In contrast there are NO manuscripts from the time of the Prophet, if there were we should be able to see bits on bone, a leaves etc somewhere preserved.

we are also talking about revelation and not some man made business studies book - unless you believe that the Bible is man made? Then we agree. Not having mark 16-9-20 and having mark 16-9-20 - big differneces - they DONT consist of the same things.

Hugo - of course the Bible as a book is man made but inspired by God. Did God actually write down the Qu'ran with his own hand?

2 - Nonsense again I say we believe in the Gospel of Jesus Not the books of mark and matthew etc and the Torah of Moses - not the one where he is being buried!!!!!

Hugo - excellent, please send me a copy of this Gospel you speak of, where can I look it up?

Its a bit like I believe in my Great, great,great,great,great,great grandma existed even though I have never seen here - I dont even know who she was But Still believe she existed - so is that nonsense???

Nothing wrong with scholars having differences - But when they show serious flaws they have to be dealt with it intellectually.

You believe in your great, great .... great grandmother because you can be absolutely sure you had one - that is no faith is required. One cannot say the same for this mystery Gospel of yours can we?

All scholars have flaws its part of being human and it is the differences that generate questions that can be openly discussed which will correct those flaws - don't you agree?

 

[MSalman]

Why not try to answer the question I set on Dr Azami's book not avoid it like this. If you read Dr Azami's book you would have known there are fragmentary Qu'rans - bits missing, does that ipso facto mean the Qu'ran now cannot be trusted?.

if you were little bit more honest and looking for truth (as you say), then you would know that these manuscripts are not as important to us as they manuscripts of the bible are to you because the Qur'an has been transmitted through orally and mutwatir ahadith for centuries in addition to the manuscripts. Whereas you only got manuscripts thousands of manuscripts not matching to each other in addition to written by unknown authors. We do not know if those unknown authors were trustworthy, true followers of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), pious, etc. So if we have manuscripts of the Qur'an missing some parts then it does not pose any threat to us because we have two other sources to verify it. However, this is not the case for you. You got nothing else to verify it with in addition to your own scholars not agreeing on what the actual bible should be (the content). On other hand, Muslim scholars do disagree over the understanding of the content but they do not disagree over the content itself - what constitutes the Qur'an.

Really, you are yet again picking straws here and there and nothing more

 

[Hugo]

eg?

You made assertion about Vaticanus and I have shown where it is corrupted unless you can show me where it is not - mark 16 - 9- 20 is missing - how will you create that and where was it first found?

I made no assertion other that to say it was 4th century, I simply asked why Dr Azami had not for example chosen it instead of the one he did choose.

No one as far as I know denies corruption but I do argue for reconstruction so I cannot quite see what you are getting at and elsewhere I have explained how corruptions can be removed.

 

[Hugo]

if you were little bit more honest and looking for truth (as you say), then you would know that these manuscripts are not as important to us as they manuscripts of the bible are to you because the Qur'an has been transmitted through orally and mutwatir ahadith for centuries in addition to the manuscripts. Whereas you only got manuscripts thousands of manuscripts not matching to each other in addition to written by unknown authors. We do not know if those unknown authors were trustworthy, true followers of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), pious, etc. So if we have manuscripts of the Qur'an missing some parts then it does not pose any threat to us because we have two other sources to verify it. However, this is not the case for you. You got nothing else to verify it with in addition to your own scholars not agreeing on what the actual bible should be (the content). On other hand, Muslim scholars do disagree over the understanding of the content but they do not disagree over the content itself - what constitutes the Qur'an.

Really, you are yet again picking straws here and there and nothing more

Well let's agree to differ, I have perhaps as many as 6,000 manuscripts so a huge body of evidence with which to reconstruct originals. Yes there are corruptions bur also huge areas of agreement between them. Why you find this so untrustworthy I don't know but it is not rational.

If I consider what you say, and I intend no disrespect, I have to believe in a single witness, prophet Mohammed and that he received the message verbally (no one else heard it) and somehow memorised it perfectly et etc. Well can I really be castigated if I find it hard to credit?